Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-04-22

III luhluS VI IHIOAISdtAuS liquors oS uON
practiced, or to give to them the moral
support of public opinion or the pro-
lection of the state government" How
humiliating is such confession. How
elastic the political virtue, and the con-
scienti0us convictions that can yield tC
such influences! When put in plain
language he says: "When the friends oil
prohibition make it e political issue tC
overthrow the Democratic party, l will
oppose it by speech or vote; l will ther
countenance the evils from the selling
and drinking of Intoxicating liquors;
will aid by my voice and vote in making
drunkards and vagabonds-rather thar
see the Democratic party defeated"
beg to enter my protest against such s
party spirit and to repudiate il as an as
persiOn on the teaching of the Democratic
party. Judge Reagan proceeds in the
same letter to say: az must express my
regret that any effort has been made tC
make party question of it, and espe
Cially do | rec ret that Democrats should
seek to identify that great and grand his
toric party with the fortunes and fate Of
whisky shops, drunkards and criminals
This shutting inconsistency is toe
| transparent to require further comment
On his own confession he has heretofore
opposed prohibition, and sought to iden'
tify the Democratic party with the for.
tunes and fate of whisky shops, drunk
ards and criminals. The Senator's best
escape is to confess that he
did not then understand the
"long and short haul" Of this grave ques-
ton. 1t is said to be d non-partisan
issue. Look at it's history in the state OF
Maine. In the Republican state conven.
ton held in Augusta in June, 1870, the
platform adopted contained this resolu-
ton: Resolved, that we renew our
adhesion to the principles of prohibition,
and vigorous and impartial enforce
ment Of the laws to that end"
In the Democratic state convention at
Portland, on June %, 1870, the platform
adopted contained the following reSOlu-
ton: "ResOIVed, that while the Demo-
cratic party is in favor of judicious
regulation by law of the sale OF intoxi-
caJlng liquors, they are opposed to the
present prohlbitOry law, and the restOra-
ton of the state constabulary." This was
seventeen years ago, and the political
strife has been waged up to the present
time and IS still party issue there. The
Prohibition platform of national conven-
ton in 1872 at Columbus, Ohio,
after declaring that all political
parties are hopelesslV unwilling to
adopt an adequate policy on the liquor
traffic says: "That the traffic 10
intoxicating beverages is a dishonor to
Christian civilization, political wrong
of uneQualed enormity, su0versive of or
binary objects of government, rot cap
q hla of hLIpcr rnnII1GtpH or pnSfroinaH ~
any system of license whatever, and i'm
perstively demands for its suppression
effective legal prohibition both by state
and national legislation" The Demo,
cratic national platform of 1876 declared
in favor Of the total separation of church
and state for the "sake alike of civil and
religious freedom in the liberty Of
individual conduct unveXed by sumptu-
airy laws"
In the Democratic national platform
of 1880 it was declared: ono sumptu
airy laws. Separation of church
and state for the good of each" The
Democratic national platform Of 1884
declared: "We oppose sumptuary laws,
which veX the citizens and interfere with
individual liberty. X We favor the sep
aration of church and state" In the full
glare of this political light the prohIbi-
ton convention at Waco, composed
largely of ministers of the gospel, met
on the 10Th Of March last, and organized
the campaign.
In an address to the people
the prohibition state central COM
mittee makes this strange announcement:
$50. Prohibition is now conceded to be a
question. and any voter may
favor or oppose it without affecting his
party allegiance" Many good Demo
Gratis have been misled and deceived by
such announcement, but the above ex-
tracts from the authoritative platforms
of principles show it to be VIGOROUSLY
untrue. The only excuse for the grave
of these non-partisan politicians
is the construction they are pleased to
give to the platform OF the Galveston
state convention. There was no such
question made in that convention as to a
amendment to the Constitu-
ton. The resolution related only to the
question of local option as it then existed
in the constitution. 1t declares in sec
ton y of the platform: "We do not be-
,ieVe that the views of any citizen upon
the question of local opt. n should inter-
tere with his standing in the Democratic
party, and we declare the question to be
one in which every D-mocl at may indulge
MS own views without affecting his De-
A short time after the nomination Of
General L. S. Ross as the Democratic
candidate for Governor last year, pious
synod conference or convention of a num-
Der of ministers held in the city of Dallas,
4 their non-partissn zeal, denounced
General Ross as the "stump orator of the |
whisky Saloons" In the same campaign |
Hon. Z. L, Dohoney canvassed the state |
IS the Prohibition candidate for Gov |
'rnOr. He denounced the Democratic !
)arty tor it's nOn-action, and recommended |
he submission and adoption of pro-
libitOry amend nent. Here was tit oc- !
;asion for Judge Reagan to take the |
stump for prohibition, and not give his |
to the evils of the liquor |
rattle, but he did not then regret that
Democrats should seek to identify the |
,rand old party with the fortunes and
ate OF whisky shops, drunk:rds and |
criminals, and he voted for the grand old |
party. The attempt of Judge Reagan to
explain the broad difference between
laws and the prohibit
DRY amendment was so feeble
hat it placed him with all
hose -prohibitionists who favor
Ugh license and laws which have for
heir object the prevention and Dnnish- |